Compară metode
Examinează metodele selectate una lângă alta; rândurile care diferă sunt evidențiate.
| Analiză bibliometrică× | Analiza Co-cuvinte× | Recenzie narativă× | Revizuire de tip scoping× | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Domeniu | Scientometrie | Scientometrie | Scientometrie | Scientometrie |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anul apariției≠ | 1969 (term coined); practice dates to 1920s–1930s | 1983 | Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward | 2005 |
| Autorul original≠ | Alan Pritchard (coined term); earlier quantitative work by Paul Otlet (1934) and S. C. Bradford (1934) | Michel Callon, Jean-Pierre Courtial, and colleagues | Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006) | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Tip≠ | Quantitative literature analysis | Scientometric network analysis technique | Literature review methodology | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Sursa seminală≠ | Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349. link ↗ | Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22(2), 191–235. DOI ↗ | Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101–117. DOI ↗ | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ |
| Denumiri alternative | bibliometrics, bibliometric study, bibliometric mapping, publication analysis | keyword co-occurrence analysis, co-word mapping, keyword co-word network, CWA | traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| Înrudite | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Rezumat≠ | Bibliometric analysis applies statistical and mathematical methods to bibliographic records — publications, citations, authors, journals, and keywords — to measure and map the structure, output, and intellectual evolution of a research field. It is widely used to identify influential works, prolific authors, productive journals, collaboration networks, and emerging research themes across any academic discipline. | Co-word analysis is a scientometric technique that quantifies how often pairs of keywords, subject terms, or title words appear together across a corpus of publications. By treating simultaneous occurrence as a proxy for conceptual relatedness, it constructs networks and clusters that reveal the intellectual structure, dominant themes, and emerging sub-fields of a research domain. | A narrative review is a broad, author-directed synthesis of published literature on a topic, written to summarize, interpret, and contextualize existing knowledge without following the rigorous, pre-registered search and selection protocols that characterize systematic reviews. It draws on the author's expertise to weave disparate sources into a coherent account that identifies themes, debates, and directions for future research. | A scoping review is a systematic evidence-synthesis method that maps the breadth and nature of research on a topic — identifying key concepts, evidence types, and gaps — without necessarily appraising study quality or pooling effect sizes. Developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and refined by Levac and colleagues (2010), it is particularly valuable for emerging or heterogeneous fields where a full systematic review would be premature or infeasible. |
| ScholarGateSet de date ↗ |
|
|
|
|